INTRODUCTION

Imagine an election decided by a razor-thin margin, every vote meticulously scrutinized. The losing candidate files a protest, seeking a recount and re-evaluation of ballots. This was the scenario in the 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections in Barangay Ican, Malasiqui, Pangasinan, where Marivic Zarate and Julian Lallave, Jr. vied for SK Chairman. After Lallave won by a single vote, Zarate contested the results, alleging that ballots with just the initials “JL” were improperly counted in Lallave’s favor. This seemingly minor dispute escalated into a significant legal battle that reached the Supreme Court, not over the validity of “JL” votes, but over a fundamental question of procedural jurisdiction within the Commission on Elections itself.

The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) initially sided with Zarate, but the Commission on Elections En Banc reversed this decision, directly intervening in the appeal process. This direct action by the COMELEC En Banc, bypassing its own divisions, became the crux of the Supreme Court’s review. The central legal question was not about the ballots themselves, but whether the COMELEC En Banc had the authority to hear the appeal in the first instance, or if it should have been initially handled by a COMELEC division.

LEGAL CONTEXT: DIVISION OF POWERS WITHIN THE COMELEC

The Philippine Constitution, in Article IX-C, Section 3, explicitly outlines the structure and operational framework of the Commission on Elections. This section is crucial for understanding the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Zarate v. COMELEC*. The Constitution states:

“Sec. 3.  The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.”

This provision clearly establishes a two-tiered system for handling election cases within the COMELEC. Election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies and appeals from lower courts, are initially assigned to and decided by a COMELEC division. The COMELEC En Banc’s role is primarily appellate, limited to reviewing motions for reconsideration of decisions made by the divisions. This division of labor is designed to ensure a more deliberative and efficient process, preventing a single body from becoming overburdened and promoting a system of checks and balances within the COMELEC itself.

The Supreme Court had previously addressed this jurisdictional issue in *Sarmiento vs. Commission on Elections* (1992). In *Sarmiento*, the Court emphatically stated that the COMELEC En Banc overstepped its authority by directly hearing and deciding election cases at the first instance. The *Sarmiento* ruling firmly established the principle that all election cases must first be heard and decided by a COMELEC division, with the En Banc’s jurisdiction limited to motions for reconsideration. This precedent set the stage for the Supreme Court’s decision in *Zarate*, reinforcing the constitutional mandate for division-level adjudication in initial election appeals.

To further clarify, “election cases” as used in this constitutional provision encompass a wide range of disputes arising from elections, including protests related to the conduct of elections, canvassing of votes, and proclamation of winners. “Pre-proclamation controversies” are a specific type of election case that arise before the formal proclamation of election results, often involving issues with the canvassing process itself. Both categories, according to the Constitution and as interpreted by the Supreme Court, fall under the initial jurisdiction of COMELEC divisions.

CASE BREAKDOWN: ZARATE VS. COMELEC – A PROCEDURAL MISSTEP

The narrative of *Zarate v. COMELEC* unfolds as a straightforward procedural error with significant legal consequences. Following the 1996 SK elections where Julian Lallave, Jr. narrowly defeated Marivic Zarate, Zarate filed an election protest with the Municipal Trial Court of Malasiqui, Pangasinan. Her protest centered on three or more ballots marked “JL” which she argued should have been considered stray votes, thus invalidating them for Lallave. The MTC agreed with Zarate, invalidating eight of Lallave’s votes and ultimately proclaiming Zarate as the winner.

Dissatisfied, Lallave appealed to the Commission on Elections. Crucially, instead of the appeal being assigned to a COMELEC division as constitutionally mandated, it was directly brought before the COMELEC En Banc. The COMELEC En Banc, in its Resolution dated April 24, 1997, reversed the MTC’s decision. It validated the ballots with “JL” initials, reasoning that these initials sufficiently identified Julian Lallave, Jr. as he was the only candidate with those initials. Consequently, the COMELEC En Banc declared Lallave the duly elected SK Chairman.

Marivic Zarate then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari, arguing that the COMELEC En Banc had committed grave abuse of discretion. While Zarate raised the issue of whether the “JL” ballots were valid, the Supreme Court, upon review, focused on a more fundamental issue: the COMELEC En Banc’s lack of jurisdiction. The Court, *motu proprio* (on its own initiative), addressed the jurisdictional defect.

The Supreme Court pointed out the clear violation of Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated the precedent set in *Sarmiento v. COMELEC*, emphasizing that the COMELEC En Banc’s direct action was a transgression of established procedure. The Supreme Court quoted its own ruling in *Sarmiento*:

“It is clear from the abovequoted provision of the 1987 Constitution that election cases include pre-proclamation controversies, and all such cases must first be heard and decided by a Division of the Commission. The Commission, sitting *en banc*, does not have the authority to hear and decide the same at the first instance… Indisputably then, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, when it resolved the appeals of petitioners in the abovementioned Special Cases without first referring them to any of its Divisions. Said resolutions are, therefore, null and void and must be set aside.”

Based on this clear lack of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court had no choice but to nullify the COMELEC En Banc’s Resolution. The Court explicitly stated that the COMELEC En Banc’s decision was “SET ASIDE” and ordered the Commission to assign the case to a division for proper resolution. Importantly, the Supreme Court did not rule on the validity of the “JL” ballots or the merits of Zarate’s original election protest. The decision was solely based on the procedural impropriety of the COMELEC En Banc’s action.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROCEDURE IS PARAMOUNT

The *Zarate v. COMELEC* case serves as a potent reminder that in election law, adherence to procedure is not merely a formality; it is a cornerstone of due process and the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the critical importance of respecting the delineated jurisdiction between the COMELEC En Banc and its divisions. For candidates and legal practitioners involved in election disputes, this case provides clear guidance on the proper appellate path within the COMELEC.

Moving forward, this ruling reinforces that any appeal from a lower court decision in an election case must initially be filed with and decided by a COMELEC division. Attempting to bypass the division and directly appeal to the En Banc is a fatal procedural error that will likely result in the nullification of the COMELEC’s decision, regardless of the merits of the substantive arguments. The *Zarate* case clarifies that the COMELEC En Banc’s jurisdiction in election appeals is strictly limited to motions for reconsideration of division decisions.

For election lawyers, this case is essential jurisprudence to cite when challenging procedurally flawed COMELEC resolutions. It highlights the necessity of scrutinizing not only the substance of election disputes but also the procedural steps taken by the COMELEC itself. A procedurally infirm decision, even if substantively sound, is vulnerable to judicial challenge and reversal.

Key Lessons from Zarate v. COMELEC:

• COMELEC Divisions First: Appeals in election cases from lower courts must first be resolved by a COMELEC division, not the En Banc.
• En Banc Limited to Reconsideration: The COMELEC En Banc’s jurisdiction over election appeals is restricted to motions for reconsideration of division decisions.
• Procedural Due Process is Crucial: Failure to adhere to the proper procedural hierarchy within the COMELEC can render decisions null and void.
• Jurisdictional Challenges: Procedural errors, such as the COMELEC En Banc acting without initial jurisdiction, can be grounds for certiorari petitions to the Supreme Court.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What is the difference between the COMELEC En Banc and COMELEC Divisions?

A: The COMELEC En Banc is the full Commission, composed of all COMELEC Commissioners. COMELEC Divisions are smaller groups within the COMELEC, typically composed of three Commissioners, tasked with handling initial hearings and decisions in election cases.

Q: What types of election cases should be initially filed with a COMELEC Division?

A: According to the Constitution and the *Zarate* case, all election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies and appeals from lower courts (like MTC or RTC decisions in election protests), must initially be heard and decided by a COMELEC Division.

Q: When does the COMELEC En Banc have jurisdiction over election cases?

A: The COMELEC En Banc primarily exercises appellate jurisdiction, specifically when reviewing motions for reconsideration of decisions made by COMELEC Divisions. It does not have original jurisdiction over appeals from lower courts in election cases.

Q: What happens if the COMELEC En Banc decides an election appeal in the first instance, bypassing the Divisions?

A: As illustrated in *Zarate v. COMELEC*, such a decision is considered to be issued without jurisdiction and is therefore null and void. The Supreme Court will likely set aside such a decision, as it did in *Zarate*.

Q: Did the Supreme Court in *Zarate* rule on whether ballots with “JL” initials are valid votes?

A: No, the Supreme Court in *Zarate* did not address the issue of the “JL” ballots’ validity. The decision was solely based on the procedural error of the COMELEC En Banc acting without jurisdiction. The case was remanded to a COMELEC Division for proper resolution, which would then potentially address the ballot validity issue.

ASG Law specializes in Philippine Election Law, providing expert guidance and representation in election protests, appeals, and related litigation. Navigating the complexities of election law requires a deep understanding of both substantive rules and procedural requirements. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and ensure your electoral rights are protected.